Finally released are the videos of the takedown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGXRwdgPM4g&feature=email
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=email&v=Q9nnn4fmGAE
WorldNetDaily broke the story about the off duty soldier who stopped the rampage. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68676
Some of my favorite highlights.
"Klessner can be seen shooting the terrorist several times in the head, halting an attack that had already killed three – including two female teachers – and injured 57 others. Klessner had grabbed the gun of a nearby police officer."
"Apparently heroism runs close to Klessner. His brother-in-law, David Shapira, a civilian and former soldier, was the man who finally killed a terrorist gunman in March during a yeshiva massacre in Jerusalem in which eight students were murdered in cold blood. Shapira had run into the school while other police officers refused to engage the terrorist during the gunman's rampage.
"June 29th in Maryland, a off-duty secret service agent was involved in an attempted car-jacking. He had 5 assailants assault him. Fired his gun at least once. Did hit one of the attempted car-jackers. Remember that Maryland prohibits its citizens from carrying. http://www.nbc4.com/news/16740256/detail.html?dl=headlineclick
Lessons learned.
1. Don't wait for the cops. They at best are 5-10 minutes away. If and when they respond, most of them lack the cajones to do anything. Look at Columbine and Virginia Tech for proof.
2. Carry a gun. No matter the law, carry one. Maryland prohibits carrying guns. Only because the SS Agent was an "ONLY ONE" could he carry.
3. Familiarize yourself with various handguns.
4. No 5 shot .38 will cut it. This incident in Israel had the guy shoot 4 times in the video. Then a IDF soldier shoots the Tango once with his rifle. Criminals aren't just once tango anymore. Multiple assailants are becoming much more common. A spare mag is a necessity.
5. Having a rifle in your car with at least one magazine of "AP" type rounds. In the AR platform - a mag of SS109 that is color differentiated for easy grabbing.
Israeli Libertarian first alerted me to this story and I was so wrapped up in wrapping up for a big family weekend I did not have time to post on this.
How many of the four would still be alive if Israel had not essentially disarmed its citizens?
ReplyDeleteI have been under the assumption that Israel was smarter than that. Live and learn.
Alot of people make assumptions regarding guns in Israel that aren't true. It wasn't till recently that I found out the truth about carry there myself.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, #2 is a fairly bad idea. Carry a gun even if it's illegal? I hate to say it, but where I live, most of the thugs carry badges and don't take well to any perceived infringement on their turf. I know I'm taking a risk walking without carrying heat, but muggings aren't half of the heat that'll hit me if I choose otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAll I will say is because of that "fairly bad idea," I am still here and my wife and then-infant son were unharmed.
ReplyDeleteA little off topic, but I have to jump in here in defense of the VT cops. They did not "lack the cajones to do anything," they were locked out.
ReplyDelete9:45 a.m. The first police officers arrive at Norris Hall, a three-minute response time from their receipt of the call. Hearing shots, they pause briefly to check whether they are being fired upon, then rush to one entrance, then another, and then a third but find all three chained shut. Attempts to shoot open the locks fail.
9:50 a.m. Using a shotgun, police shoot open the ordinary key lock of a fourth entrance to Norris Hall that goes to a machine shop and that could not be chained.
The police hear gunshots as they enter the building. They immediately follow the sounds to the second floor.
From the Virginia Tech Report. (Pages 7-8 of the linked PDF)
Israeli "Only Ones"? I thought they were better than that...
ReplyDeleteI am certainly sympathetic to Nezumi's comments. To the extent that it's still a free country, each of us has to find his own sense of balance. And, insofar as the Only Ones seem to be developing increasingly militant attitudes about disapproved states of being*, it is not a trivial question.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, it was only this year that I held my nose and went through the official CCW supplication (read: ass-kissing) process I had considered theoretically for years. It still grinds my gears to even think about it, but I was ultimately swayed by the recent news that I am going to be a new father. Somehow, that brought exactly the bolt of clarity I had (apparently) been needing.
If anyone may find it of interest, these three sentiments pretty much sum up the thoughts that made it happen for me:
1. So I don't particularly want to sign myself up for a tyrannical government list...but can I really convince myself, anymore, that I am not already on plenty of others? That ship likely sailed long ago.
2. I first heard the following while taking a Jeff Cooper doctrine pistol course: would you rather be caught with your gun, or without it? (This is powerful, obviously, but also a bit simplistic in a world in which your life may actually be more at risk in the former scenario.)
3. To paraphrase from a magazine article, in which the reference was to LEO training, and make it applicable to any peaceable citizen:
Q. This is a low-crime area. How often do you think people get killed around here anyway?
A. Same as everywhere. Just once.
Here's hoping that none of us ever need to file a claim on that policy, no matter how we've written it. But, I fear that's not much to hope for--it's apparently happened to David, and it happened to me too, long ago when I was run off the road in central Texas in the middle of the night. (The sound of a 1911 slide chambering a round of .45 ACP was apparently enough, there...both silhouettes returned to their car rather immediately and took off.)
Avoidance, if possible. If not: DVC.
*Funny, isn't it, how being peaceable isn't even a countermanding consideration anymore...much less the only consideration.
Yes, each person must determine their own threshhold. But I trust no one thinks we'll be able to claim Freedom without personal risk?
ReplyDeleteI picked the name of this blog for a reason--based on government actions, and borrowing their terminology--there is a "War on Guns" going on as part of a greater war on Liberty. The people behind it are very dangerous and ruthless characters who will not hesitate to destroy your life if you defy them.
Hence the subtitle, "Notes from the Resistance."
That means defiance and resistance as appropriate. It means more than just talking about things. it does not mean doing it self-destructively.
I've shared risks I've been willing to take--from carrying where not "permitted" when I deemed it appropriate to refusing to register a firearm in defiance of California law, as well as the many, many "legal" avenues for redress I've pursued over the years--some of them intentionally pushing the envelope and resulting in official investigations and veiled threats from law enforcement, all of which have been documented here and some previously on KABA.
There comes a time when each of us must come to grips with civil obedience or civil disobedience. Rosa Parks chose to break the law. Unlike most bloviating gun forum warriors, I didn't read of too many civil rights leaders claiming doing so made them all look bad.
This is a site where I hope to congregate the few like minds out there, and help to radicalize those who are ready to step into the deeper end of the pool. Yes, I said radicalize.
If you're from the vast majority that say we need to enforce existing gun laws, this is not a place where you'll be comfortable. However, you may find comfort in realizing that most "gun bloggers" agree with you.
But if you agree with me that the problem is not too much obedience, but rather too little disobedience, and that more of us taking a hard line would create something much more difficult and risky to attempt to control, well that's what I'm trying to encourage and cultivate here.
And this does one other thing--increased hard core pressure helps keep the gun lobby groups in line--without that awareness and protest, how much further to the left do you think they'd be willing to compromise?
A friend of mine just got busted for "carrying concealed." He had a gun in a bag in his car.
ReplyDeleteOur lovely Governor, Janet NepolaReno, just today vetoed a bill that would have cleared up problems carrying in a car in Arizona, caused by a court's idiotic interpretation of the statute.
But it's a misdemeanor.
My wife saved herself from a confrontation in California by "illegally" carrying a gun that I had just bought for her.
So one takes his or her chances.
The bottom line is - police, apparently in other countries as well, have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen.
A minor point, not really on the substance of the topic...the word you're looking for is cojones, meaning, colloquially, "stones," and not cajones, which would mean large boxes.
ReplyDelete--Terence Geoghegan
geocities.com/tgesq
brujofeo.blogspot.com
Perhaps he was wrong, but not in his choice of spelling, but in his denial of them having large 'boxes'. I tend to think most of them do.
ReplyDeleteI may not be a "gun blogger", but I don't think you'll find anyone more supportive than I of the absolute human right to own and to carry, everywhere you go, whatever kind of weapon you desire without asking anyone's permission, ever. Anything else is just playing into the hands of the gun haters.
ReplyDelete